(Reuters) - The editor of the Guardian, a major outlet for revelations based on leaks from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, says the British government threatened legal action against the newspaper unless it either destroyed the classified documents or handed them back to British authorities.In an article posted on the British newspaper's website on Monday, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said that a month ago, after the newspaper had published several stories based on Snowden's material, a British official advised him: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back."After further talks with the government, Rusbridger said, two "security experts" from Government Communications Headquarters, the British equivalent of the ultra-secretive U.S. National Security Agency, visited the Guardian's London offices.In the building's basement, Rusbridger wrote, government officials watched as computers which contained material provided by Snowden were physically pulverized. "We can call off the black helicopters," Rusbridger says one of the officials joked.The Guardian's decision to publicize the government threat - and the newspaper's assertion that it can continue reporting on the Snowden revelations from outside of Britain - appears to be the latest step in an escalating battle between the news media and governments over reporting of secret surveillance programs.On Sunday, British authorities detained for nine hours the domestic partner of Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian writer who met face to face in Hong Kong with Snowden and has written or co-authored many of the newspaper's stories based on his material.The Guardian reported, and UK authorities subsequently confirmed, that David Miranda, Greenwald's Brazilian partner, was detained by British authorities under an anti-terrorism law as he was in transit from Berlin to Brazil and was changing planes at London's Heathrow Airport.One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks.White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday that while the United States did not ask British authorities to detain Miranda, British officials had given the United States a "heads up" about the British government's plan to question him.Rusbridger, in his article on the Guardian's website, said that despite the destruction of thecomputers in London, he told British officials that due to the nature of "international collaborations" among journalists, it would remain possible for media organizations to "take advantage of the most permissive legal environments." Henceforth, he said, the Guardian "did not have to do our reporting from London."A source familiar with the matter said that this meant British authorities were on notice that the Guardian was likely to continue to report on the Snowden revelations from outside British government jurisdiction.Rusbridger said that in meetings with British officials before the computers were destroyed, he told them the Guardian could not do its journalistic duty if it gave in to the government's requests.In response, he wrote, a government official told him that the newspaper had already achieved the aim of sparking a debate on government surveillance. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more," the unnamed official was quoted as saying.During Miranda's trip to Berlin, which the Guardian said it had paid for, he visited with Laura Poitras, an independent film-maker who was the first journalist to interact with Snowden. Poitras co-authored stories based on Snowden's material for the Washington Post and the German magazine Der Spiegel.Greenwald told the New York Times that Miranda went to Berlin to deliver materials downloaded by Snowden to Poitras and to acquire from Poitras a different set of materials for delivery to Greenwald, who lives with Miranda near Rio de Janeiro.Greenwald said British authorities seized all electronic media, including data memory sticks, which Miranda was carrying. But Greenwald told the Forbes website that "everything" Miranda had "was heavily encrypted."Greenwald did not immediately respond to an email from Reuters requesting comment.While British authorities confirmed that Miranda had been detained under an anti-terrorism law, they did not further explain their actions. Brazil's government complained about Miranda's detention in a statement on Sunday that said the use of the British anti-terrorism law was unjustified.

"You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."

As a poster quipped on Reddit, there is perhaps no more fitting a eulogy for democracy in the UK than this phrase. For all the west, for that matter.

UK government, and boy do I detest them, may have done all this- but it is clear as day that they were pressured into action by my (US) government. This is disgusting, repugnant, vile.

For all the rights that successive governments have been stealing from the citizens here for the past 35 odd years, the freedom of the press is a big thing in Britain. Really big. It is quite shocking that we allow ourselves to be dictated to by America like this

Classifying information does not mean that the US people have no right to know about it. If it is particularly vile, damning and against the interests of the people it deserves to see the light of day. This goes for the UK too, any "democracy" where the government is solely accountable to the people.

The government saying "Nobody can see this" doesn't mean we have to sit and twiddle our thumbs and accept their edict on the matter.

For example. Let's say the government killed JFK but they (CIA and so on) sealed away the files so that nobody would know they did it. Totally classified.

Would we the people not have a right to know about this and punish the people responsible? When the government starts doing whatever they want and justifying it as an act of 'national security' with effectively zero oversight, you'd better believe that democracy is dead or dying.

Classifying information does not mean that the US people have no right to know about it. If it is particularly vile, damning and against the interests of the people it deserves to see the light of day. This goes for the UK too, any "democracy" where the government is solely accountable to the people.

The government saying "Nobody can see this" doesn't mean we have to sit and twiddle our thumbs and accept their edict on the matter.

For example. Let's say the government killed JFK but they (CIA and so on) sealed away the files so that nobody would know they did it. Totally classified.

Would we the people not have a right to know about this and punish the people responsible? When the government starts doing whatever they want and justifying it as an act of 'national security' with effectively zero oversight, you'd better believe that democracy is dead or dying.

I agree with 90% of this post, except for one thing.

Snowden exposed that the US government is spying on its citizens, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong and that's not basically what went down.

I think the government needs to keep watch on its citizens. The government needs to monitor things to keep its people safe.

If someone wanted to commit a terrorist act the same capacity as 9/11, and the government was able to stop them because they did a snooping around, would you still be disappointed in the US government?

This is a little cliche, but "with great power, comes great responsibility". We have freedom of speech, but what do you do when that freedom hurts or can potentially harm other people?

Snowden exposed that the US government is spying on its citizens, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong and that's not basically what went down.

I think the government needs to keep watch on its citizens. The government needs to monitor things to keep its people safe.

If someone wanted to commit a terrorist act the same capacity as 9/11, and the government was able to stop them because they did a snooping around, would you still be disappointed in the US government?

This is a little cliche, but "with great power, comes great responsibility". We have freedom of speech, but what do you do when that freedom hurts or can potentially harm other people?

It'd be one thing if proponents, such as yourself, of this program could produce a litany of highly compelling results... Instead of abuses and violations that have happened during this 'quest to fight terrorism' to the every day citizen of the US. Or if there was any real accountability.

The gap between our two views may seem remarkably small at first, but rest assured we are leagues a part from one another.

I think the government needs to keep watch on its citizens. The government needs to monitor things to keep its people safe.

If someone wanted to commit a terrorist act the same capacity as 9/11, and the government was able to stop them because they did a snooping around, would you still be disappointed in the US government?

Of course government can monitor and It's clear no one would be disappointed at that time if the government overstepped it's rights and caught terrorists. But see, there is always that double edged sword of course. The government shouldn't have to tap into everyones privacy in order to catch them, the laws should still apply to how they handle the situation.

If the government suspects person A and B to be terrorists, then the government does have the right to tap into their phones or whatever else. That isn't the issue that has been happening. The issue is they don't know who the terrorists are and are just tapping into everyones privacy in hopes to find something. Quite frankly it's a waste of time and usually they catch such people by word of mouth, informants, and whoever else but usually not over the phone or invading your average persons privacy for the sake you may come across something. It doesn't happen that way.

For people like Snowden, I still don't know everything about that situation and there could possibly be more to that problem then meets the eye and ears of what we hear. This just isn't really anything to get worked up about otherwise you will put yourself into a state of $#@!. lol

think the government needs to keep watch on its citizens. The government needs to monitor things to keep its people safe.

If someone wanted to commit a terrorist act the same capacity as 9/11, and the government was able to stop them because they did a snooping around, would you still be disappointed in the US government?

This is a little cliche, but "with great power, comes great responsibility". We have freedom of speech, but what do you do when that freedom hurts or can potentially harm other people?

We can also have everyone live in prisons to keep everyone safe, but what's the point of trying to save lives from terrorism if we need to give up our lives in order to do so?

I read some more articles about the NSA. I had no idea what was going on. I agree with one of the articles I read: the NSA needs reform.

No!

The NSA and by extension, the FBI, DEA, CIA, DHS and other so-called "national security" organizations need no reform. They need to be abolished in whole. Their directors and subordinates need to be tried for treason and crimes against humanity, indicted and punished accordingly.

The NSA and by extension, the FBI, DEA, CIA, DHS and other so-called "national security" organizations need no reform. They need to be abolished in whole. Their directors and subordinates need to be tried for treason and crimes against humanity, indicted and punished accordingly.

OK, let's say for a moment that you could actually do that.

What then?

Surely you don't think that a country with no national police force and no national security is a good thing, do you? Who is going to enforce Federal Law? Who is going to enforce immigration control? Who is going to secure our borders, protect our interstate and international interests?

Or would you prefer just to have nothing and hope for the best? Because our neighbors to the south seem oh-so friendly. They're hanging some really interesting pinatas from the bridges these days.

Surely you don't think that a country with no national police force and no national security is a good thing, do you? Who is going to enforce Federal Law? Who is going to enforce immigration control? Who is going to secure our borders, protect our interstate and international interests?

Or would you prefer just to have nothing and hope for the best? Because our neighbors to the south seem oh-so friendly. They're hanging some really interesting pinatas from the bridges these days.

Simple solution to most of what you mentioned. Return power back to the states and local municipalities accordingly and where applicable. Also, certain "services" shouldn't even be subject to political and civilian factors.

There is no need to have the FBI because the states have their own police forces to deal with criminals. There is no need for the DEA because drugs enforcement is NOT nationally authorized under any clause of the constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments are pretty indicative of what laws the federal government can and can't enforce or enact. There is no need for the CIA because the military is responsible for our defense and intelligence is really the purview of the entity most suited to our national defense. Toppling governments and installing puppets serves no purpose but to entangle us in affairs we've no right to meddle in, in the first place. With regards to our borders, the national guard is best suited to this task. Deploying the national guard to our borders is the best way to ensure that crimes committed by our neighbors doesn't spill over the borders for us to deal with.

There are easy solutions to every problem you've mentioned. The point being, much of what is deemed a national problem can be solved at the state level, with less lives involved and with less treasure expended. The American people need to grow a backbone and accept certain realities. The federal government is incapable of dealing with most ills.

Snowden exposed that the US government is spying on its citizens, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong and that's not basically what went down.

I think the government needs to keep watch on its citizens. The government needs to monitor things to keep its people safe.

If someone wanted to commit a terrorist act the same capacity as 9/11, and the government was able to stop them because they did a snooping around, would you still be disappointed in the US government?

This is a little cliche, but "with great power, comes great responsibility". We have freedom of speech, but what do you do when that freedom hurts or can potentially harm other people?

The issue is the Government overstepping its boundaries to do these things. It creates a perpetuating system that can remain unaccountable for its actions with the power to do whatever it wants. This is far more influential and dangerous than any terrorist group. This is not a Government anyone should ever want. We cannot allow the Government to monitor its citizens so closely, especially with the fast pace of rising technology, because it gives them too much power to act out their will.

No Government can be perfect. But a democracy that doesn't break its own laws, and holds some faith and respect for its own people would certainly be nice.

Simple solution to most of what you mentioned. Return power back to the states and local municipalities accordingly and where applicable. Also, certain "services" shouldn't even be subject to political and civilian factors.

There is no need to have the FBI because the states have their own police forces to deal with criminals.

States cannot enforce or prosecute Federal Law. That is outside their jurisdiction.
States cannot enforce or prosecute interstate trade violations. That is outside their jurisdiction.
States cannot enforce or prosecute immigration violations. That is outside their jurisdiction.

There is no need for the DEA because drugs enforcement is NOT nationally authorized under any clause of the constitution.

You clearly don't know anything about the Constitution if you believe that.

Start by reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. If it crosses state or international lines, it's the exclusive domain of the Federal Government.

The 9th and 10th Amendments are pretty indicative of what laws the federal government can and can't enforce or enact.

ROFLMAO.

No, it's Article One of the Constitution that defines the powers and limitations of the Federal Government. Amendments were notations and clarifications that were added after the fact. That's why they are called AMENDMENTS and not Articles.

Deploying the national guard to our borders is the best way to ensure that crimes committed by our neighbors doesn't spill over the borders for us to deal with.

Where are you going to deploy national guards to? It's illegal to deploy them or try to house them on private lands. Got any big military bases that I don't know about?

There are easy solutions to every problem you've mentioned. The point being, much of what is deemed a national problem can be solved at the state level, with less lives involved and with less treasure expended. The American people need to grow a backbone and accept certain realities. The federal government is incapable of dealing with most ills.

There are easy solutions to the uneducated who think they know it all. You don't even know the basics about the Constitution, and you are in no way educated enough to solve anything.

Using the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with Interstate Commerce to justify the present state of affairs and disproportionate power vested in the federal government vs state governments is absurd. In fact, I'd go so far to say it is perverse.

N&P clause existed to enable congress to carry out the powers actually invested in them, which is all well and good, until you interpret those powers incredibly broadly.

Basically ensuring they can almost do anything they want- which, surprise, they do. I really don't see how more people don't clue into this given that the cat is out of the bag and they are spying on every human being using a cellphone or computer with an internet connection in the US and clearly even outside our borders. Regardless of what Hamilton and Madison argued early on about its inclusion, Patrick Henry was pretty damn on the ball with his scathing accusations. Anti-federalists in general seemed to have had their eye on the long path and realized, correctly, the problems that would come.

These powers are very extensive, but I shall not stay at present to inquire whether these express powers were necessary to be given to Congress? whether they are too great or too small? My object is to consider thatundefined, unbounded and immense power which is comprised in the following clause;--"And, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States; or in any department or offices [officer] thereof." Under such a clause as this can any thing be said to be reserved and kept back from Congress? Can it be said that the Congress have no power but what is expressed?"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" is in other words to make all such laws which the Congress shall think necessary and proper,--for who shall judge for the legislature what is necessary and proper?--Who shall set themselves above the sovereign?--What inferior legislature shall set itself above the supreme legislature?--To me it appears that no other power on earth can dictate to them or controul them, unless by force; and force either internal or external is one of those calamities which every good man would wish his country at all times to be delivered from.--This generation in America have seen enough of war and its usual concomitants to prevent all of us from wishing to see any more of it;--all except those who make a trade of war. But to the question;--without force what can restrain the Congress from making such laws as they please? What limits are there to their authority?--I fear none at all; for surely it cannot justly be said that they have no power but what is expressly given to them, where by the very terms of their creation they are vested with the powers of making laws in all cases necessary and proper; when from the nature of their power they must necessarily be the judges, what laws are necessary and proper. The British act of Parliament, declaring the power of Parliament to make laws to bind America in all cases whatsoever, was not more extensive; for it is as true as a maxim, that even the British Parliament neither could nor would pass any law in any case in which they did not either deem it necessary and proper to make such law or pretend to deem it so. And in such cases it is not of a farthing consequence whether they really are of opinion that the law is necessary and proper, or onlypretend to think so; for who can overrule their pretensions?--No one; unless we had a bill of rights to which we might appeal, and under which we might contend against any assumption of undue power and appeal to the judicial branch of the government to protect us by their judgements. This reasoning I fear Mr. Printer is but too just; and yet, if any man should doubt the truth of it; let me ask him one other question, what is the meaning of the latter part of the clause which vests the Congress with the authority of making all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution ALL OTHER POWERS;--besides the foregoing powers vested, &c. &c. Was it thought that the foregoing powers might perhaps admit of some restraint in their construction as to what was necessary and proper to carry them into execution? Or was it deemed right to add still further that they should not be restrained to the powers already named?--besides the powers already mentioned, other powers may be assumed hereafter as contained by implication in this constitution. The Congress shall judge of what is necessary and proper in all these cases and in all other cases;--in short in all cases whatsoever.Where then is the restraint? How are Congress bound down to the powers expressly given? what is reserved or can be reserved?

One could argue, perhaps, that both groups were right. The Federalists emphasized that without these powers the US would be incapable of functioning, given how hamstrung we were under the articles of confederation. We are the most powerful nation on earth and have lasted a few hundred years- but then again, that's not really indicative that they were right. "They were clearly right because here we are!"

The Anti-Federalists, though, were overwhelmingly right in many of their claims. Look at the US as it is today. The sweeping omnipotent powers that the federal government has and everything they can do- even while looking us straight in the eye and telling us with little doubt "this is constitutional". Largely they ensure the circle jerk keeps going on, because citizens are too stupid and lazy to get off the merry-go-round.

Pretty much agree with everything Morg just said, outside of it being 'easy' I mean. Transition would be rough.

Also I'm not quite sure that sanctioned executions would be in order, but trials definitely.

Easy to implement but rough to transition to. Many laws, regulations and statutes were and continue to be enacted at the flick of a pen and at the whim of the person flicking said pen. As such, many laws, regulations and statutes can be repealed in the same manner that they were brought into existence.

On the subject of trying our politicians for treason and executing them, most deserve only jail time. However, everyone who has ever signed legislation that results in the loss of an American life or the life of another human being because of the need to prosecute an undeclared and thus, unjust war, the need to spy on everyone or the need to unjustly enrich himself/herself, deserves nothing short of the death penalty. This is what it will take to dissuade any public servant from ever doing anything outside the purview of the constitution ever again.

Originally Posted by Completely Average

States cannot enforce or prosecute Federal Law. That is outside their jurisdiction.
States cannot enforce or prosecute interstate trade violations. That is outside their jurisdiction.
States cannot enforce or prosecute immigration violations. That is outside their jurisdiction.

The power to nullify federal laws that infringe on the constitution by the states is a powerful tool that can be used. Any law that impedes free and fair interstate and intrastate commerce can also be nullified.

Immigration violations are the jurisdiction of the state in which said violations take place with the exception of Washington D.C. which is a federal jurisdiction and at the points of entry to the country. The national guard is more than capable of handling the jurisdictional areas that the federal government does have in regards to the physical entry aspect and in that same aspect immigration services has the jurisdiction at the civil level.

You clearly don't know anything about the Constitution if you believe that.

Start by reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. If it crosses state or international lines, it's the exclusive domain of the Federal Government.

Let's take a look at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Where does the government have the exclusive domain in regards to the DEA? Or are you telling me that the "general welfare" portion is all encompassing? Do you really want to go there? How about the common defense portion? Or would you care to go the taxation route? I'd be interested in knowing where you want to take this.

ROFLMAO.

No, it's Article One of the Constitution that defines the powers and limitations of the Federal Government. Amendments were notations and clarifications that were added after the fact. That's why they are called AMENDMENTS and not Articles.

Except that amendments 9 and 10 put a seal on how those powers can and ought to be exercised. This means that any law can be added up and until the point said law violates those "clarifications and notations" as well as the Articles. The Bill Of Rights is the clarification of the powers restricted to the government. The 9th and 10th Amendments further clarify the other restrictions on existing and future amendments as well as the Articles. Put simply. It means, if I can't do it, neither can the government.

Where are you going to deploy national guards to? It's illegal to deploy them or try to house them on private lands. Got any big military bases that I don't know about?

We deploy them to patrol the border. Also, we have military bases and forward operating bases within the United States. And I'm well aware of the 3rd Amendment.

There are easy solutions to the uneducated who think they know it all. You don't even know the basics about the Constitution, and you are in no way educated enough to solve anything.

Apparently, I know a bit more than you do. But that's not surprising since you seem to think the N&P, Commerce and General Welfare Clauses are a license to violate the liberties of the individual which ironically, the bulk of the power lies with.